THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR
In no sense is an attempt being made here to give a complete history
of the causes of the war for the independence of the United States.
This is simply a brief analysis of the ten outstanding causes and the
nature of the conflict, without defending or opposing either side in
the struggle.
The common opinion in the United States regarding the American
Revolution is that it was a war waged against Great Britain in which
the American people as a whole rose up against the mother country in
order to protect themselves against unjustifiable and unbearable
oppression. This is the position taken in the Declaration of
Independence, and we have always looked upon the conflict through the
eyes of the Declaration of Independence. The thirteen colonies
declared themselves free and independent on July 2, 1776, and then on
July 4, 1776 adopted the Declaration of Independence proclaiming to
the world their reasons for declaring themselves free. Thus the
Declaration of Independence was not a declaration of independence,
but a publication to the world of the causes which led the colonies
to the point of such a declaration. It was an effort to put their
side before the world and justify it. It was written by Thomas
Jefferson in the heat of a great emotion. Twenty-seven grievances
were held against Great Britain to justify the course taken by the
colonies. We shall not attempt here to study the real nature of
"freedom" which is much more than a question of national boundaries,
and is even independent of national boundaries,--but we shall accept
the term in its usual narrow legal sense.
The outstanding causes of the Revolutionary War were the following:
the expulsion of the French from Canada in 1763, the attempt on the
part of Great Britain to enforce the navigation acts, the British
western land policy, the British financial legislation regarding the
colonies, the stamp act of 1765, the Townshend act of 1767, the
Boston "tea party" of 1773, the five punitive acts of 1776, the
general economic depression during the 70's, and religious conflicts.
Let us examine briefly these ten causes.
(1) After the French were defeated by Great Britain in 1763 and lost
Canada, the colonies did not feel the same need for protection by the
mother country as formerly. The French on the north were defeated.
The Indians gave some trouble but were not a great power to be
dreaded. As a result, the colonies felt themselves to be self
supporting. Georgia was an exception because as the youngest of the
thirteen colonies it was dependent on England for subsidies and
protection from the Indians. Thus, because the people recognized
their dependence on Great Britain for protection, the movement for
independence made slower headway in Georgia.
(2) By far the most important cause of the American Revolution was
the effort on the part of George III to enforce the navigation laws
of Great Britain. It was customary then for every mother-country to
regard its colonies as trading posts. The colonies were considered
necessary as the source of raw materials for the home manufacturers
and also as a market for the surplus manufactured goods of the home
country. This economic principle was a phase of mercantilism which
was the dominant economic doctrine of the time. In harmony with this
theory, Great Britain as early as 1651 began passing navigation acts
requiring her colonies to trade only with British merchants. All the
export trade of the colonies had to be sent to Great Britain, and all
their imported goods had to come from Great Britain. In addition,
the ships transporting these goods had to be owned by British
subjects.
This law, however, was openly violated by the colonial merchants.
They traded with the Dutch or with any other foreigners they could.
British officials in America were bribed and co-operated in this
illegal trade. The leading people of New England at this time were
merchants, and it has been estimated that nine-tenths of these
merchants were smugglers. John Hancock, who was to become president
of the First Continental Congress in 1775, was a smuggler on a great
scale, and at one time was sued for $500,000 as a penalty for
smuggling. John Adams was his counsel. (See Simons, "Social Forces
in United States History," pages 61-62.) It was these merchants of
New England and especially of Boston, who were among the leaders in
the Revolution. After the close of the French and Indian War in
1763, English merchants and English business in general had to be
heavily taxed in order to pay the enormous national debt.
Accordingly, pressure was brought to bear on the British government
to have the navigation laws enforced, which would give the English
the colonial trade, thus enabling them to meet more easily the
financial demands of taxation. Efforts were then made by Great
Britain to enforce these navigation laws which had been openly
violated for more than a century. Their legality had never been
questioned. It was the usual policy of all countries of that age in
dealing with their colonies. These navigation laws were no doubt
unwise interferences with trade but their legality was not
questioned, as all modern tariffs are trade barriers, which does not
make their violation legal. Besides, these laws did not entirely
disregard the interests of the colonies. Great Britain gave them a
monopoly of tobacco raising, prohibiting Ireland from raising it.
Bounties or sums of money were often paid by the British Government
to the colonial producers to encourage industry. These bounties were
paid on indigo, tar, pitch, hemp, and many other industries which
Great Britain was attempting to establish in the colonies in order to
keep the empire from finding it necessary to buy them from a foreign
nation. These navigation laws aroused New England rather than the
South, for it was the commercial section of the country.
(3) Another cause of friction between the colonies and the mother
country was the British land policy proclaimed in 1763. This policy
ordered the colonial governors to grant no more land to settlers
beyond a certain western border extending south from the New England
States along the western part of New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. (See Hockett,
"Political and Social History of the United States," Vol. 1, page
115.) This line extended down just east of the mountains and was to
leave to the Indians the territory west of it. This western land was
then to be purchased from the Indians for the king. After that the
Indians would go further west and their original territory was to be
opened to settlers as soon as it was purchased. This arrangement was
made by Great Britain to avoid conflict between the Indians and the
frontier settlers. The frontier settlers, however, objected,
preferring to drive the Indians back by more ruthless methods even if
it caused trouble. The western land speculators also did not like it
because they could not sell their land until Great Britain had first
pushed the Indians back. The royal government immediately began
making treaties with the Indians for the purchase of their territory.
The policy was wise and humane but the settlers were too impatient to
abide by it. (The Washington family was prominent in these western
land speculations.) A land lobby was kept in London by these
speculators in their efforts to get large grants of western land from
the crown and then to sell it off as the country became more and more
settled.
(4) The next principal cause of trouble was the British financial
legislation regarding the colonies. The colonies had issued fiat
money or colonial bills of credit, which were a form of paper money.
These could not be redeemed, and immediately began to depreciate in
value. Yet they were made legal tender by the colonial legislature,
so that they had to be accepted in payment of debt. Often the
colonies would buy goods from the English and pay them with this
colonial money. The southern planters were especially active in
using it to pay their debts to their British creditors. The
merchants of London soon complained of this practice. Finally, in
1764, Great Britain prohibited all the colonies from issuing these
bills of credit or fiat money as such a procedure was considered
unfair to their creditors. This, of course, aroused great opposition
from those profiting by this currency when paying their debts. Yet
no one now would defend such a financial policy on the part of the
colonies.
(5) The popular conception today is that the Stamp Act of 1765 was
the principal if not the sole cause of the American Revolution. This
fact is greatly exaggerated but it is the easiest to understand, and
for that reason has been given the chief place among the many causes
of the conflict. The Stamp Act was an act passed by Great Britain
requiring the placing on all legal documents of stamps to be sold to
the colonies by Great Britain. The usual impression is that this
revenue was to go to the mother country and was to be a continual tax
upon the colonies for the sole benefit of the crown. This impression
is entirely false, however. The revenue from these stamps was to be
used to pay one-third of the expense of a colonial army of about
10,000 men to be kept here for the defense of the colonies. Not one
penny was to go to Great Britain. Examine any elementary text on
United States history. They speak of taxing the colonies, but leave
the impression that the money was to go to Great Britain, whereas
actually it was all to be spent for the protection of the colonies
against possible trouble with the Indians and the French. This
colonial army had been proposed before by the colonies. In 1739
colonial leaders under the leadership of the Governor of Pennsylvania
had themselves proposed such an army supported by such a tax. But at
that time they had felt the danger of the French in Canada. After
the defeat of the French in 1763 this danger was no longer so
threatening. When this Stamp Act was passed in 1765 its operation
was delayed for one year in order to give the colonies an opportunity
to agree among themselves upon some other method of raising the money
if they objected to the Stamp Act. The act was repealed in 1766
because of the bitter opposition of the colonies, who disliked a tax
of any sort. "No Taxation Without Representation" has been greatly
over-emphasized. It is only half true, for it implies that taxation
with representation would have been accepted.
(6) When the colonies objected to the Stamp Act, calling it an
"internal" tax, Great Britain repealed it and in 1767 passed the
Townshend Act, which provided for a tariff on imports to the
colonies. The imported goods, however, were boycotted and Great
Britain was forced to repeal the tariff on imports in 1770. The
amount of imported goods in the New England colonies alone dropped
from 1,363,000 pounds in 1768 to 504,000 pounds in 1769. After the
repeal in 1770 the imports in 1771 were doubled. Thus the boycott
was a powerful weapon in the hands of the colonies. With it the
colonies were in a position to enforce almost any demand they liked
upon Great Britain.
(7) When the Townshend duties were repealed in 1770 a tax was still
left on tea, in order to assert the right to levy such a tax. In
1773, Great Britain allowed a tea company known as the East India
Company to bring over a large quantity of tea. This company had been
given a monopoly of the colonial tea market. When this tea arrived
in Boston, on December 16, 1773, a group of men entered the ship and
threw overboard the cargo valued at about £15,000. But why was this
tea destroyed? Simply because the leaders in this act were tea
merchants in Boston, whose trade would have to compete with the newly
arrived tea had it been permitted to enter the market. The act was
the destruction of private property on the part of the participants.
The more moderate element in Boston wanted the tea paid for and the
action repudiated.
(8) As a punishment for this performance, Great Britain passed the
five punitive or coercive acts of 1774. These five acts were the
following: Close the port of Boston until the tea should be paid for.
Revise the charter of Massachusetts. Send to England for trial
colonial agents accused of violence in the execution of their duties.
Station soldiers in Massachusetts to aid in the execution of law.
Annex to Quebec the land between the Ohio River and the Great Lakes.
These acts were all legal. Great Britain had as much right to demand
that Boston pay for the tea destroyed as we have to demand that a
foreign power compensate our subjects for property lost there through
the mob action of its subjects.
(9) Another cause of the Revolution often overlooked was the general
economic depression both in Great Britain and the colonies following
the close of the French and Indian War in 1763. This was felt in all
industries. Depressions of this sort always create political unrest
and a desire for change in government, even though the authorities in
power are in no way responsible for the condition. This is
especially true in American political history. Presidential
elections have been determined by economic conditions having no
direct bearing upon the issues involved.
(10) The tenth and last cause we shall give of the American
Revolution was the religious cause. There was a movement on foot to
locate an Episcopal bishop in the colonies. At that time all the
clergy of the Episcopal Church were ordained in England as there was
no bishop here. Consequently, all the Episcopal ministers came from
abroad and they were often mediocre, for the more efficient among
them were kept in England. In 1770 there were about two hundred and
fifty Episcopal clergy in the colonies, most of whom were in
Virginia. The rumor of locating a bishop here aroused resentment in
the other denominations who unanimously opposed the plan. But the
most effective religious cause of the Revolution came from still
another source. When Great Britain extended Quebec down between the
Ohio River and the Great Lakes, the Catholic Church was made the
established church of these regions, as it was in Quebec. This
greatly incensed all Protestants and "no pope no king" became one of
the slogans of the Revolution. John Adams considered this religious
animosity "as much as any other a cause" of the war for independence.
Both these attitudes on the part of the colonies were unwise. An
Episcopal bishop was badly needed here to elevate the Episcopal
clergy and remove the unworthy ministers. The prejudice against
Catholics was simply folly. The Catholic priests in the colonies
unanimously supported the Revolution.
If we examine the acts of Great Britain which brought on the
Revolution we find that they were all legal. They were all in
harmony with the spirit of the age. There was simply a general
breakdown of mercantilism. Patrick Henry especially talked about
"rights as British subjects," but there were no such rights of which
the colonies were being deprived. Had they remained in England they
would have enjoyed no privileges of which they were deprived by
coming to America. Talk of this sort made effective oratory, but was
false when examined. "No Taxation without Representation" is not a
legal matter but commonplace political philosophy. We have many
other examples of taxation without representation. The great
majority of people in England were then disfranchised yet taxed.
Women were taxed before they were given the ballot. Many people are
now taxed even in those states where they are deprived of the ballot.
Phrases, as this regarding taxation, were merely effective
generalities without real meaning. The mistake of Great Britain was
not in the passage of any illegal or unusual laws for governing the
colonies, but it was in trying to rule a group of people against
their will. Such a policy invariably invites trouble.
Instead of thirteen units, as we usually regard the thirteen
colonies, there were three units differing in economic and political
ideals. The coastal plains extending from New Hampshire to
Pennsylvania constituted one, which was dominated by commercial
interests. The second was the tidewater section from Maryland to
Georgia, which was primarily agricultural and was dominated by the
planters. The third unit or section was the frontier with extreme
ideas about political democracy. The first unit was commercial and
interested in trade and shipbuilding. Great mercantile families had
grown up there accumulating their wealth largely through smuggling
with the West Indies. To them the navigation laws were especially
offensive. Their chief desire was to restore the commercial
conditions before 1763, yet they bitterly opposed a withdrawal from
the British Empire, for they wanted its protection. They dominated
Boston, Newport, New York, and Philadelphia. They were Whig in
opposing trade restrictions, but Tory in opposing separation. They
had no sympathy with the political radicalism of Jefferson, Henry,
and such leaders. The second region was the tidewater region of the
South. It was dominated by the planters, many of whom were heavily
in debt to British creditors. They secured the passage of lax
bankruptcy laws detrimental to non-resident creditors. These laws,
however, were vetoed by the king as were the laws providing for
colonial bills of credit. These planters felt themselves
aristocrats. Although they opposed British financial policy, they
likewise objected to the democracy of Jefferson. The third section
was the frontier. This section had often been discriminated against
by the older sections in matters of representation in the colonial
assemblies, administration of justice, and taxation. Its inhabitants
were zealous for popular rights and had no economic interests to the
contrary. In domestic politics they were out of harmony with the
commercial and planter sections. Their zeal for imaginary "rights of
man" gave great impetus to the movement for independence. Henry and
Jefferson were the leaders of this section and their point of view
prevailed when the Declaration of Independence was written, the ideas
of which were shocking to the other sections.
These three sections reacted differently to the various British Acts.
In Georgia, the frontier people were pro-British because they were
dependent upon Great Britain for subsidies and protection from the
Indians. The frontier people of North Carolina were also Tory
because they had a sharp difference with the eastern part of the
state. Had the frontier of all the colonies had a similar sharp
difference with the coastal plains they would no doubt have been Tory
and defeated the Revolution. The frontier of Virginia got possession
of the state and furnished such leaders as Henry and Jefferson.
The Revolution was the American phase of an English civil war. It
was not so much a conflict between England and the colonies as
between different classes of the English people. It was struggle
between liberals and conservatives. The liberals were in control in
the colonies while the conservatives were in control in England. In
both countries there was a large and influential minority group. The
thirteen colonies were a part of the British Empire and simply
seceded, as the South did in 1860.
The terms "Whig" and "Tory" are often misleading or vague when
applied to this period. Many Whigs of Great Britain, such as Burke,
Fox and Pitt, were opposed to the British policy of regulating the
colonies, but they were equally opposed to granting them
independence. Many of the American moderates were Whig in opposing
the British navigation policy, but wanted to pay for the tea
destroyed in Boston. Many advocated an imperial union to handle such
questions in the future. The radicals were for complete home rule
and got control of the First Continental Congress of 1774. There was
never a general uprising of the whole colonial population. John
Adams estimated that about one-third of the population were opposed
to separation. The greatest problem of the Revolutionists was to
keep the spirit of revolt alive. About 25,000 Americans enlisted in
the British army.
When the radicals declared the colonies independent in 1776 many men
of property were shocked--Henry Laurens wept when he heard the
Declaration of Independence read--but there was rejoicing among the
radicals. A horse-jockey neighbor said to John Adams: "Oh! Mr.
Adams, what great things you and your colleagues have done for us!
There are no courts of justice now in the Province and I hope there
never will be any."
There are many facts regarding our conduct during the Revolution
which are not pleasant to relate. For example, on June 1, 1775,
Congress passed a resolution disclaiming any intention of invading
Canada. The report of this decision was widely circulated in Canada.
About four weeks later Congress secretly made plans for the invasion
of Canada that fall. The invasion took place in September, 1775, but
Canada drove the invaders back. (See Lecky, "The American
Revolution," page 215.) Is there any difference between our invasion
of Canada and the German invasion of Belgium? Many people suspected
of being Tories were terribly badly treated. The New York
legislature passed a resolution that Tories should be "deemed guilty
of treason and should suffer death." They were often hunted by mobs,
tarred and feathered, and killed. American troops set fire to the
houses of the people to plunder and rob. In fact in some sections
the colonists looked upon the British army with as much favor as the
American army. New York alone confiscated $3,600,000 worth of
property belonging to Tories, and all the states did likewise.
During that entire period the Tories were the great sufferers. It is
obvious that a person had as much legal and moral right to be a Tory
as to be a Whig, provided he committed no act of violence against
society, and the great majority of Tories had committed none. It was
simply a question of difference in opinion. To punish a person for a
difference of opinion cannot of course be harmonized with
democracy,--majority rule does not mean coercion of minorities.
Dictatorship of the majority can be the worst kind of despotism.
When Great Britain recognized the independence of the colonies in
1783, one provision of the treaty agreed to by both parties was that
the Tories should be compensated by the states for the property
confiscated during the conflict. The states, however, did nothing
about it, but treated that provision as a "scrap of paper."
Was our separation from Great Britain a wise or an unwise step? It
is impossible to answer a question of this sort with certainty. We
assume that it was wise and beneficial. But to determine that, it
would be necessary to roll history back, to let us remain a part of
Great Britain, and then compare the two conditions. It has been
argued that if we had remained a part of the British Empire the
democratic spirit of the colonies would have been a great help to the
democratic element in Great Britain, that these elements co-operating
would have democratized and federated all the English-speaking
peoples, which, in turn, would have aided in democratizing the world.
Such an idea cannot be upheld with assurance, but neither can one say
dogmatically that the American Revolution resulting in our separation
was for the best. We use the terms "freedom" and "independence" in
too loose a sense when we say that we then gained our freedom or
independence. Would the South have been free and independent if it
had been the winning faction in the Civil War? Secession or the
changing of national boundaries does not give freedom. Canada is
free although a part of the British Commonwealth; Texas is free
although a part of the United States.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Faulkner, Harold Underwood--_American Economic History_, pages
137-139.
Hayes, C. J. H.--_Political and Social History of Modern Europe_.
Vol. I, chapter 10.
Hockett, H. C.--_Political and Social History of United States_.
Vol. I, chapters 5, 6, 7, 8.
Lecky, E. H.--_The American Revolution_.
Muzzey, D. S.--_The United States of America Through the Civil War_.
Vol. I, chapter 2.
Schlesinger, A. M.--_New Viewpoints in American History_. Chapter 7.
Simons, A. M.--_Social Forces in American History_. Chapters 6 and 7.